Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hex · 04-30-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

I feel free not to show it. And it is not MY evidence, but the one unearthed by a famous archaeologist. Everyone interested by this subject knows him and his work. If someone is not able to find it, it means that this someone is not really interested or has not the basic knowledge to understand it. Twenty years of field work and more than 1200 sites studied. Go figure.

You mean Emmanuel Anati (bio here)? The guy who 'found' Mt. Sinai to be the mountain of Har Karkom in the Negev desert?

Nice quote from his book on this site:

Quote:

Many queries remain regarding the role of this mountain and its real or imaginary relation to the people of Moses. Among all these questions the most problematic one is that concerning dating: our discoveries indicate that Har Karkom was a sacred mountain from the fourth and third millennia BC until the beginning of the second millennium BC. These dates, however, far from correspond to those put forward by the traditional exegesis for the period of the Exodus.

Archaeological research has shown that many of the sites mentioned in the biblical narrative of Exodus and Joshua, such as Jericho and Ai, flourished in the third millennium BC. Destruction and devastation took place towards the end of this millennium. Scholars have made many attempts to make their discoveries coincide with conventional dates of the Exodus, but if the identification of the archaeological sites is correct, not one of these sites existed in the thirteenth century BC, nor for several centuries before or after.

When archaeology found no traces of the late Bronze Age at Jericho, instead of claiming that the date they were searching for was not correct some researchers claimed that the biblical Jericho could not be there; others concluded that Joshua's conquest was just a fairy tale. When excavations failed to find remains of the late Bronze Age at Ai, the same explanations were advanced. Extensive archaeological excavations showed that Arad was a strongly fortified city in the early Bronze Age, but in the late Bronze Age it did not exist. At Ein-Kudeirat (Kadesh-barnea) traces of early Bronze and beginning of the middle Bronze Age camping sites are similar to those of Har Karkom, but there are no remains from the late Bronze Age.

When the biblical stories were put into writing, they were addressed to peoples who knew where Jericho, Ai and Arad were located. These sites were part of their daily life and of their oral traditions. Nobody can be seriously convinced that all these identifications of sites are wrong. We may conclude that if the biblical narratives have a historical background, they refer to events that could not have taken place in the late Bronze Age. The solution proposed by some scholars, that the whole story of Exodus refers to events that took place in the Iron Age, after the Kingdom of Solomon, does not stand up to the evidence of the ethnographic context of the biblical accounts or with geography, history or archaeology.

Some scholars try to solve the dilemma by concluding that the story of Exodus is the fruit of pure imagination and bears no relation whatsoever to historical fact. The preconceived idea of dating these events of the Bible to the thirteenth century or the late Bronze Age has reached a dead end, but archaeological investigation has brought to light sites and cities that have been built and destroyed, suggesting a new chronological framework. Through an analysis of these remains it seems possible to reconstruct the sequence of events that made up history and inspired myths.

From a vast gamut of findings, exploration, and site investigations archaeology indicates the late third millennium BC as a time when people from the periphery became more aggressive and invaded the fortified cities of fertile areas. Today we know the reason for such phenomena. As climatic changes caused desertification of the semi-fertile areas, peripheral tribes intruded into fertile lands in order to survive. The Joshua saga of aggression against Canaanite cities may well have been inspired by memories and stories referring to an age in which drought and expansion of deserts severely restricted liveable spaces in the southern periphery. Both the global archaeological context and palaeoclimatic research can help us to understand the biblical narrative.

In the last hundred years, many efforts have been made to find references to the Israelites and to the Exodus in ancient Egyptian literature. In the rich New Kingdom literature, no mention is made of the children of Israel or of their departure from Egypt. Not even the social or historical context corresponds to that suggested by the Bible. The biblical narrative refers to important Asiatic groups present in Egypt, to upper-level political changes, and to political strategies by new leaders which upset the social positions of these Asiatic tribes. If this tradition has even the most minimal connection to a historical reality, it is unlikely that the situation was totally ignored by Egyptian record-keepers, and in fact it does not seem to have been ignored. Related texts do exist; they refer, however, to the Old Kingdom rather than the New Kingdom.

Quite a secret ... :Cheeky:

Hex · 04-30-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

The "walls" are your issue not Kenyon's. She gives those dates regardless of the lack of evidence of any walls and admits such:

Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains."

Kenyon has several reasons why she dates the Israelites here in LBIIA rather than earlier in 1550BCE where there is evidence of a major destruction of walls. Some of that has to do with burial customs and lots of other things. Arguing that Kenyon doesn't date this correctly simply because you found walls c. 1550 BCE doesn't mean that was the time the Israelites arrived, and it is certainly not the time Kenyon assigns to them. There are reasons why she excludes the Israelites from earlier periods. This is her OPINION. I agree with this opinion. That's all. There is nothing to be disproved by you here. The lack of wall evidence for this level doesn't disprove there were never any walls there. As is well known, for instance, often building materials from a deserted city were salvaged and used for other building; that would be one reason potentially that no evidence of that wall from that period remained.

So you can only disagree with Kenyon, that's all. I'm not misquoting her position.

But Lars, if you go with the -archaeology- of Jericho to give you the date that Kenyon comes up with, then you have to go with the archaeology that doesn't show evidence of walls from the time period. No foundations, no rubble, it's totally picked clean. People don't cart rubble around when the areas they're building in are fuill of it.

And, to make the evidence work for you, you -have- to have the walls fall to fit with the biblical story. And the archaeological evidence by Kenyon points to a layer that could be associated. Kenyon doesn't say that Isrealites -were- there. It's not the proof you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Give up on this already! It's a REFERENCE! It is from 800 AD. Is it a good reference or bad? Who cares! It's THERE and there by someone who was intimately involved in Egyptian history. Where did he get this IDEA that Joseph came into Egypt in the specific year of the 4th of Apophis? !!!! Wherever he got that idea, it clearly means he uderstood that Pharaoh Amenhotep III must have died in the Red Sea, killed the same year as the Exodus. I don't think he was focussed on Akhenaten at all. So we must presume that someone, somewhere, got the idea that Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Now whether this is proven reliable or substantiated beyond this or not, it would place the Exodus during the time Kenyon does as well, which is during the reign of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. So they are RELATED.

Soooo ... You again show that you don't care about the veracity of your sources. Hmmm.

So ... All I need is one reference to show ... well ... anything I want, and -you'd- be forced to accept it because it's a reference, good or bad, right?

And why am I not 'giving up already'? Because this questionable 'reference' is a pivotal point that you use to justify your timeline. Methinks you're building your argement on shifting sands, Lars. Isn't that a bad thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

So your deciding to dismiss Kenyon for your own reasons, and then Manetho/Syncellous as well simply means you don't agree with those references, but I don't care. I'm only noting those references ARE THERE and imply a certain chronology, no different than lots of others who read about the Jews building at Pi-Rameses and think the city was named after the pharaoh instead of the FAMILY in the region. If it were based on the family, then the dating of the Exodus can occur at any other time prior to Rameses II. But that's a theory too that's out there. I can dismiss that theory, but not the reference to Pi-Rameses and what it means. You can disagree with Kenyon if you want, but you can't say she never mentioned the Israelites or didn't specifically date their conquest of Jericho between 1350-1325BCE. Because she does. Manetho/Syncellus agrees with that dating. That's the only "notice" here. That's all. I have my own indepenent references beyond these for dating the Exodus.

So, no amount of arguement is going to convince you of the problems of your logic? It's that simple? You're just here to broadcast your diatribe, not actually have meaningful conversation about it.

That means we're done, because here in the real world, your evidence doesn't hold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

You mean besides the reference in Manetho/Syncellus? and the Bible? None. Though Rohl thinks a king with a multi-colored coat depicted in Egypt was actually Joseph. But other than that, none. If you want me to come up with a video of Joseph, forget it! You'll have to just keep on doubting. Most historical "evidence" we get is going to be circumstantial, unfortunately.

I already told you! I accepted that, yes the Jews were quite messy and got tired of carrying all that gold they got from Egypt and decided to just dump it in a huge pile when they left for the Promised land. Now I don't have a video of this, but I think it is reasonable to conclude that some Arabs were in the region and came by and saw the big pile of gold there and took it! Therefore, if you go back there now and look for any large pile of gold dumped by the Jews, you don't find it! Which proves it must have been taken by the Arabs or someone. Therefore, since there is no evidence of any gold being found there, it proves the Jews must have left behind gold artifacts which were salvaged by people coming through that region over the next 500 or so years. So the Kadesh-Barnea is just as we would expect, an area with no gold being found lying around. Perfect!

LG47

Lars, you know that's not what we were talking about with the gold. Besides, they couldn't have dumped it all - how would they have made the calf? The debate there was about the things the Isrealites would have had to carry, move, and potentially lose on a 40-year trek.

You've utterly failed to convince me of your posit, and with things as they stand, I don't see me giving up on some sort of standard in science and archaeology or you giving up on your belief in your timeline based on bad science and archaeology. Have a nice day, Lars. :wave:

blastula · 04-30-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

If the Exodus never happened, what is the speculation for the genesis of that story? Is it a borrowing of other myths like the flood story?

I did find an answer to my question from a Bible Unearthed review.

Quote:

But why would a writer in the 7th century tell a story like Exodus?

When Israel (the northern kingdom) was destroyed by the Assyrians a flood of refugees left the north and came to Judah. Hezekiah’s Jerusalem grew 10 fold (from 6 to 60 hectares) and Hezekiah entered upon expansion and defensive building projects, including the famous tunnel which bears a paleo-Hebrew inscription. Ronny Reich points out that the tunnel of 500 meters was not a straight line but an S shape, making the fact that the two teams of excavators meeting in the right spot truly remarkable. And Silberman notes, quite correctly I think, that it is now, in its history, that Judah begins to memorialize its accomplishments. For the first time it has a centralized government and literate bureaucrats.

Dominique Charpin raises the important question at this point- would Judah capitulate to being an Assyrian vassal or would it remain independent with Egypt’s help? It chose independence which led to the disaster of Lachish. That disaster, David Ussishkin points out, resulted in Judean vassalage but economic prosperity. A genuine government was then set up and an impressive state was born.

The Assyrians withdrew in 630 to deal with the Babylonian threat. With Assyria absent Judah began to dream of a greater kingdom, looking north to the former lands of Israel. It is during this period that Josiah “finds” the scroll in the Temple and initiates his grand “pan-Israelite” reform. The cult was centralized and Judah became the center of the government and faith. Unfortunately for Josiah, at the same time as he wishes to expand north, Egypt has the same intentions. Under its Pharoah, Egypt renewed its desire to retake portions of Canaan. Hence, Egypt was all that stood in Josiah’s way.

Exodus was composed, then, to assure a small group of people that they could overcome an Egyptian Empire if they followed their divinely inspired, law giving leader. Josiah is the “new Moses” who will lead his people to victory, just as Moses led the people to freedom. This established the second pillar of Judaism, the Law. It is this Law which serves to coalesce the children of Abraham.

Sounds plausible enough. Even if it didn't go down exactly that way, I'd guess it was probably due to some combination of similar motivations.

Larsguy47 · 04-30-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

You think that with a couple of million people, they'll all be close enough together that a clean-up crew could actually clean up after them -every- morning, and they'll all be able to -all- find a sandy area in the Sinai?

Not every morning. Just when they vacated the region for the last time.

LG47

Larsguy47 · 04-30-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

You mean Emmanuel Anati (bio here)? The guy who 'found' Mt. Sinai to be the mountain of Har Karkom in the Negev desert?

Nice quote from his book on this site:

Quite a secret ... :Cheeky:

A quote from your source says: "When archaeology found no traces of the late Bronze Age at Jericho, instead of claiming that the date they were searching for was not correct some researchers claimed that the biblical Jericho could not be there; others concluded that Joshua's conquest was just a fairy tale."

This is not correct. Cartouches were from in tombs at Jericho from the reign of Amenhotep III. The date for the end of his reign varies but two popular dates are either 1351 or 1378BCE, both falling withing the LBIIA Late Bronze Age Period (1400-1300 BCE).

In that regard, the Bible says Jericho remained uninhabited for 400 years and that is precisely what is found archaeologically.

LG47

Larsguy47 · 04-30-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

But Lars, if you go with the -archaeology- of Jericho to give you the date that Kenyon comes up with, then you have to go with the archaeology that doesn't show evidence of walls from the time period. No foundations, no rubble, it's totally picked clean. People don't cart rubble around when the areas they're building in are fuill of it.

I told you that the WALLS are not an issue because a miracle was associated with their fall. The Bible just says it fell flat on itself in some way. For all we know that could have been accomplished by whatever composed the wall to disintegrate into dust. Since we can't determine the actual physical change in substance that caused the wall to completely collapse, then we're limited about speculating whether there should be any stones left or even the foundation. So the lack of evidence of a wall that we don't know the substance of is something I can't test.

But other things are pertinent that would exclude backdating the Israelites to the 1550 BCE city where there was a destruction of the walls. Kenyon must have taken all of that into consideration and came up with her dating, not that she had much choice because of the cartouches found of Amenhotep III.

SO PAY ATTENTION VERY CLOSELY: Jericho had many occupations at different times. One occupation was during the time of Amenhotep III in the LBIIA period. That city experienced abandonment for 400+ years after it was destroyed. This fits the Biblical historical reference that Jericho was not to be rebuilt and that it remained unrebuilt for the next 400 years. That alone is enough to associate the last destructive level at Jericho with the Israelites, which Kenyon specifically does between 1350-1325BCE.

But once we are looking at this period for the Exodus and the fall of Jericho, it is of note that Manetho/Syncellus' references regarding Joseph would date the Exodus in the last year of Amenhotep III as well. So there is a historical precedent for dating the Exodus at this time, and an extra-Biblical reference as well.

It seems to me that your major objection is only that some earlier occupation of Jericho where there are confirmed walls is your reason for moving the dating back to that time. But that's not good enough, since other dating points to a later time for the Exodus.

Quote:

And, to make the evidence work for you, you -have- to have the walls fall to fit with the biblical story. And the archaeological evidence by Kenyon points to a layer that could be associated. Kenyon doesn't say that Isrealites -were- there. It's not the proof you want.

I'm only interested in the CHRONOLOGY for a destructive level of Jericho that fits 40 years after the rule of Amenhotep III. Kenyon gives me that. So I'm satisfied.

I can't move on the WALLS because I don't know precisely how God caused the walls to collapse. They could have been turned into sand and dust, right down to the foundation. Since I don't know that for sure, one way or another, I can't presume about what archaeological evidence should have remained.

Quote:

Soooo ... You again show that you don't care about the veracity of your sources. Hmmm.

The "veracity" is proven by my dating. The Bible indicates that Akhenaten was a worshiper of Yhwh immediately after the Ten Plagues and the Exodus and built an altar for him in the middle of Egypt. That would be my Biblical interpretation of the chronology of the Exodus. Since Syncellus/Manetho dates the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten as well, or perhaps to the end of the rule of Amenhotep III, the source is confirmed to be correct. I'm wondering about the source myself. Someone must have preserved some reference to the original chronology and that Amenhotep III died in the Red Sea was an accepted fact. I don't think Manetho would have been concerned about Joseph. I think the reference about Joseph is a retrocalculation from the end of the reign of Amenhotep III.

So move the Exodus and the Jews to wherever you want; I'm content that Manetho and Kenyon are correct in this case.

LG47

RED DAVE · 04-30-2007, 05:21 PM

From Larsguy:

Quote:

Not every morning. Just when they vacated the region for the last time.

LG47

Right, just like a picnic on a summer afternoon.

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about a population (2.5 million) that's almost big as Chicago (2.8 million) and bigger than Houstaon (2 million). At one time this group allegedly stayed in one place for 38 years. and you're still alleging they left no trace.

You need to take up a new career as a standup comic.

From Larsguy:

Quote:

I told you that the WALLS are not an issue because a miracle was associated with their fall.

The last fallback of a phony religious argument: Duh, it was a miracle.

Like I said, standup.

RED DAVE

Johann_Kaspar · 04-30-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

You mean Emmanuel Anati (bio here)? The guy who 'found' Mt. Sinai to be the mountain of Har Karkom in the Negev desert?

Nice quote from his book on this site:

Quite a secret ... :Cheeky:

Indeed!!!

At last... and at least one knowledgable poster. I was getting tired waiting...

So everybody else was too lazy to google archaeology + sinai, it seems... Tooooo bad.

It seems I am losing my time here...

Johann_Kaspar · 04-30-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

From xaxxat:
From Johann Kasper:
Because it doesn't exist.

From Johann_Kasper:
Sounds like the same guy who wrote the book that Larsguy says he has that "proves" that Aristotle and Socrates had a love affair.

Funny that your "famous" archaelologist doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the sources on the Internet. (Please tell us it's not Ron Wyatt.)

So, neither you nor the self-proclaimed Messiah, Larsguy47 (nor anyone else), has come up with any evidence yet.

From Johann_Kasper:
Since it's you who are claiming unknown sources, I think you need to can the insults, dude.

In any event, for you and Larsguy47:
RED DAVE

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

:Cheeky:

xaxxat · 04-30-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Indeed!!!

At last... and at least one knowledgable poster. I was getting tired waiting...

So everybody else was too lazy to google archaeology + sinai, it seems... Tooooo bad.

It seems I am losing my time here...

Googling archaeology + sinai shows that sinai is all over the friggin map...

Looks like you've fallen for another scammer.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.